Labor has dismissed Tony Abbott’s call for Australia to join the war in the Middle East, with the former prime minister arguing that the country should use its armed forces in support of allies.
Abbott asked, “What is the point of having armed forces if they’re not to be used to support our allies in a just cause.” His comments came as debate intensified over Australia’s response to the conflict and the federal government’s position on weapons trade and diplomatic pressure.
The exchange sits within a broader live political discussion about the Middle East, including the war involving Iran and its impact on the global economy, and continued arguments over Australia’s role. The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned that the Iran war could permanently scar the world economy, even if a durable peace deal is eventually reached.
“But now, even our most hopeful scenario involves a growth downgrade,” the IMF chief said. “Even in a best case, there will be no neat and clean return to the status quo.”
Abbott also attacked the government’s approach to Israel, saying previous statements by Penny Wong, including expressions of concern, had not changed anything. He argued that cancelling more than a billion dollars in Israeli arms contracts would send a stronger message and place real pressure on Israel to pull back.
He described the war in Lebanon as disastrous, illegal and immoral, and said it was threatening global peace. He also argued that Australia should not be buying weapons that have been tested by Israeli defence manufacturers in conflicts such as Gaza and Lebanon, and should not be contributing weapons parts.
According to Abbott, ending those contracts would not only respond to the “moral situation” created by Israeli military attacks, but would also show Israel that there is a direct and real cost to its actions. He said that would be an important additional benefit.
The comments add to the pressure on Labor as it tries to navigate a sensitive foreign policy debate. The government has faced criticism from different directions over how forcefully it should respond to events in the Middle East, with arguments ranging from calls for stronger condemnation to demands for concrete economic consequences.
Labor’s response was to reject Abbott’s push for Australia to enter the conflict. The government has continued to frame its approach through diplomacy and concern about regional escalation rather than military involvement.
The debate comes at a time when the consequences of the war are being discussed not only in strategic and political terms, but also in economic ones. The IMF warning underscores the view that even a settlement would not fully reverse the damage already done to growth and stability.
Abbott’s intervention, meanwhile, places renewed focus on the long-running argument over whether Australia should use defence policy and trade restrictions more aggressively in support of allies. His remarks suggest a far more interventionist position than the one Labor has adopted.
As the live discussion continues, the political divide remains clear: Abbott is urging a stronger military and economic response, while Labor is rejecting the idea that Australia should join the war in the Middle East.
